Thursday, December 23, 2004

I see a lot of people complaining about Time giving Bush the Man of the Year (or Person of the Year, whatever), and I don't understand it. It's not an award. It's not the "Favorite" Man of the Year, or "Best" Man of the Year, it's about who has had the greatest influence over events during the past year. Bush certainly qualifies. It's not about honoring someone.

Check the list, Hitler and Stalin are both on it, that alone should make people realize that it is not an award that Bush is getting. Actually, Stalin is on there twice. Also, Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr were named together during the same year in 1998. Certainly, they weren't trying to pick their favorite person and couldn't decide who they liked better between those two. It's all about people who make the news. It's not like a Father of the Year award, or Employee of the Year award, or an MVP or a Nobel Prize. It's just an acknowledgement of influence in shaping events in history.

9 comments:

Yeah, but if you read the associated article, it's pretty clear they nominated him b/c they think he's swell. It's maybe one of those things where people who like him see a smile and people who don't see a smirk, but the article seemed to be pretty glowing about some things that some might not think are fit to be lionized. At least in the case of my thinking it was a stupid choice, I was more annoyed about their reasons for choosing him (which were positive) than him as a choice.

A-I don't think I read the entire article, but I did see some excerpts from it, and while they did look complimentary, I took it more as a backhanded sort of thing, like Hey Congratulations for being able to get elected even though you're a complete moron. At least in a couple of the quotes I saw about the way he was able to "reshape politics" and something about his 10-gallon hat leadership style. I didn't really think they could mean that seriously.

H-I have 3 teenagers at my house, and I just don't answer the phone. It's never for me, if someone wants to talk to me, they can call my cell phone.

This is true man, I was going to update my site, I'm a little younger and didn't realize this at 1st...Bush had the most effect on the world, this is true, therefore he deserves it...haha...If anyone wants to see the list, you can see it here.

Regardless of what any of you have to say good about Bush, I have lost all respect for him. Previous comments refer to Bush being deserving of some sort of honor, somewhat contradicting the original post. Bush's influence on the world has been horrible. Killing people in the name of "WMD." Interesting how our government can justify such wars based on trying to save more lives in the future. Case and point.

That's interesting. Not that I am condoning such an idea, but it makes you wonder why they didn't pick Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Perhaps these two would have been too sensitive, this close to the villainy that they have unleashed on the world...